linuxaudio.org

On Thursday 01 May 2008 21:29:22 Mark Knecht wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips  wrote:

> > bradley newton haug wrote:

> >  > attempting to subvert the intentions of the authors (who are present

> >  > on this list) is deplorable.

> >

> >  He isn't subverting anything. Open source code licensed under the GPL

> >  guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of

> >  you see fit.

> >

> >  The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it

> >  address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do

> >  what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter

> >  of its license, as are we all.

> >

> >  You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has

> >  anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It

> >  seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all.

> >

> >  Best,

> >

> >  dp

>

> Thanks Dave. I applaud everyone for their comments on this subject.

> Personally I feel that using GPL code for any reason allowed within

> GPL is certainly not a deplorable action. We do it every day with lots

> of GPL programs. At the time this package of code was written it is my

> understanding that this was a GPL project. That what the license seems

> to say and that's all I work on.

>

> I am still the only non-developer I know of who is specifically listed

> on the LS site as a contributor. Over the years I've certainly been

> one of the 'spew-iees' Dave is speaking of, fairly enough, because I

> put in huge amounts of efforts on the project only to have the rug

> pulled out from underneath me with no discussion. The GPL doesn't

> protect my 'interests' as a tester/contributor bucause my name isn't

> listed in the code header. In fact the license was changed and I

> continued working on the project because the developers didn't even

> announce they'd made the change.

>

> I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really do for us on this

> subject but I'd be interested in knowing. Whatever the reasons were

> that the authors changed the license they have refused to talk about

> them in public. I don't think that taking the code non-GPL is really

> 'wrong', per se, but possibly the FSF would tell them they have to use

> a non-GPL license that they write instead of stealing the GPL and

> modifying it? (Heck, I think the idea of the GPL itself was that you

> don't change it, right? If anyone can change it then the idea of

> feeding code back into the program falls apart/)

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

		       Version 2, June 1991
 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,

 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies

 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
*** changing it is not allowed ***
Has it been changed?
I am not sure if the GPLhas any entire agreement intent such that you can't

have a meta license which modifies the GPL itself rather than a dual license

play.

quoted text
>

> Anyway, GPL programs fork all the time. I'm not trying to 'subvert'

> anything. The 'story' was that they were 'contacted' by someone and

> decide to go that direction for reasons never made public. That's

> their business. I *think* people have asked a few times over the last

> few years if anyone had some GPL code. I found it today. I'll provide

> it as long as the stated intention is for use in a GPL project. I

> *think* that's for the good of people using GPL software. Nothing

> more.

>

> Cheers,

> Mark

all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user